Studying Originals: Early Dickert of Lancaster Pennsylvania

[rich pierce]

Jim Kibler brought up the idea of “studying originals” here. I decided to put this original offering in Gun Building but we can move it to Antique Collecting. I am interested in approaching the subject from a gun builders view.

To kick things off, here is an original rifle built by Jacob Dickert of Lancaster Pennsylvania, probably built around 1770 plus or minus. It was for sale here if you want to see and read from the auction catalogue. https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/83/1121/revolutionary-war-era-jacob-dickert-flintlock-american-longrifle

This may be a video of this exact rifle. https://youtu.be/qG302gtc4s4?si=_TzgW9Da3vQVi_in

This rifle is also close to or the same as #48 in George Shumway’s Rifles of Colonial America.

Instead of me trying to compose a summary of its features that stand out to me, perhaps we could discuss:
What immediately says “early American longrifle” when you see it?
What says “Lancaster”?
What says “Dickert”?
Other things?











Anyone interested in a biographical sketch of Jacob Dickert’s life would find this interesting. https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/jacob-dickert/

[Jim Kibler]

Come on, someone has to start!

[Joe Stein]

Rich, I think two things that say early are the patchbox and the triggers.  I think it's fairly well known that the patchbox is one used by Dickert on early guns.
That style of trigger has had plenty of discussion here in the past. Maybe when I get some time I will try to look up some of those discussions. I'm pretty busy the next few days.
Somebody else jump in now that I have broken the ice.
Joe Stein

[Jim Kibler]

Are there any other Longrifles with the straight rear trigger?  I can’t recall any at the moment?

[Jim Kibler]

So, what about the box design would suggest it’s an “early” feature?

[rich pierce]

Keep in mind one mission of this forum is education, and there are thousands of members who read but never post. Pointing out what may be obvious to some can be very helpful to many we’ve never met.

[NDduckhunter]

As one of the guys yall are teaching, this is my take. To me, (not much experience but learning) the wide butt plate and thicker wrist seem to point to an early gun, the set triggers look like what I’ve seen on some early 1700’s jaeger rifles. The trigger guard also seems early to me. When I say early I’m thinking 1760’s-1770’s. I assume the flat lock with no adornments and no rollers can be early attributes but could also say colonial made vs imported?

[rich pierce]

Rich, I think two things that say early are the patchbox and the triggers.  I think it's fairly well known that the patchbox is one used by Dickert on early guns.
That style of trigger has had plenty of discussion here in the past. Maybe when I get some time I will try to look up some of those discussions. I'm pretty busy the next few days.
Somebody else jump in now that I have broken the ice.
Joe Stein

Joe, that type of flat rear set trigger is very rare. I can think of one other on an American-made gun, shown in one of the books on Moravian guns. Also very early.

(Added in edit) Joe, that box really is pre- Golden Age in so many ways. I think many students guesstimate that the daisy patchbox common to many Golden Age Lancaster rifles may have emerged by the start of the Revolutionary War. Or, at the latest, by the early post-war years. The box on this one is atypical and looks like it had no offspring. Seems Dickert abandoned it as opposed to expanding on it in his later builds.

I hope others will reply to comments as well. It’s meant to be a round table discussion.

[rich pierce]

As one of the guys yall are teaching, this is my take. To me, (not much experience but learning) the wide butt plate and thicker wrist seem to point to an early gun, the set triggers look like what I’ve seen on some early 1700’s jaeger rifles. The trigger guard also seems early to me. When I say early I’m thinking 1760’s-1770’s. I assume the flat lock with no adornments and no rollers can be early attributes but could also say colonial made vs imported?

Yep, in my experience that trigger type is rare here but more common on European rifles of the early to mid 1700s. We can’t know if they were new or recycled when Dickert stocked this gun. The buttstock, 5” deep and over 2” wide, is rarely seen on guns reliably dated to 1790 and later. It also has little curvature, but is not as flat as buttplates found on some other rifles thought to be contemporary with this one. 

The guard looks fairly early with a grip rail that is not snugged up to the wrist, but it lacks anything that screams early, such as finials at the ends that are more decorative.

[A.Merrill]

The architecture of the stock has always told me what county or school the gun was made in. The underline of this rifle looks like Lancaster, but the comb doesn't. There is a J.P. Beck with that same style comb and why they did that I have no idea. Other Beck rifles and I don't believe any other Dickert rifles are made this way. Until we have a time machine it will only be a guess as to why, but does anyone have a good guess?   Al

[TommyG]

I believe the Dickert rifle pictured is a twin to RCA 48.  Almost identical except for the comb and engraving on the box.  I attempted a rendition of this gun back in 2018 using a Davis set trigger.  I ended up making the rear straight trigger from an old file.  Another interesting aspect of this piece that I haven't seen anywhere else is the nose of the lockplate has an astragal arch.  For what it's worth, the straight grip rail on the triggerguard may be HC, but absolutely stinks for gun handling.

[rich pierce]

I believe the Dickert rifle pictured is a twin to RCA 48.  Almost identical except for the comb and engraving on the box.  I attempted a rendition of this gun back in 2018 using a Davis set trigger.  I ended up making the rear straight trigger from an old file.  Another interesting aspect of this piece that I haven't seen anywhere else is the nose of the lockplate has an astragal arch.  For what it's worth, the straight grip rail on the triggerguard may be HC, but absolutely stinks for gun handling.

Tommy, by coincidence, the lock signed A Albrecht shares that astragal arch nose.

[Karl Kunkel]

To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.

[rich pierce]

To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.

Agree, it looks like there is wood loss on the comb from above the front of the patchbox to the junction with the wrist.  Even without that possible wood loss, it seems like the nose of the comb would be pretty low before dropping to the wrist. If we compare the buttstock on this Dickert to that of the Albrecht Lancaster style buttstock, there are some significant differences. Is this an earlier style of Dickert architecture or a one-off to fit a specific customer? I don’t know how much that might have been done.

[Hatchet-Jack]

Thanks for starting this discussion Rich. My favorite rifles are the early ones.

There is a signed Dickert on page 125 of Moravian Gun Making that is very similar to this one. It also has the straight triggers and the same patch box. What tells me this is an early rifle is the wide butt plate, the patch box which has simple engraving and a fleur-de-lis finial. The lock looks Germanic. Also the very common C scroll carving behind the cheek piece looks like other early rifles like Albrecht or Antes.

[sbowman]

     Discussing originals is always of interest to me, but like most, don't have access to them to handle in person.  The next best thing has been books and the internet which has added to my knowledge; especially the quality of photography available from the Auctions.
     Regarding the rifle in this thread, It is actually RCA #49 after restoration. The forestock, lock and triggers are not original to this rifle as pictured in Shumway. Also the comb irregularity is wear or damage, I'm convinced it had a typical straight dickert/lancaster style comb when new.
     I haven't built many rifles but my requirements for an early generic, say pre 1782(independence) would be a barrel 1 1/8 OR 1 1/16 at breech, no longer than 42in and 54 cal or larger. Buttplate min 1 7/8 wide by 5 in min heel to toe and flat or almost flat. stock with 2 1/4 to 2 5/8 drop at heel, possibly a stepped wrist, some minimal carving, wooden or simple brass patchbox lightly engraved. barrel pinned as opposed to wedges. My lock choice would be a Davis early colonial for the 1 1/8 or Chambers dale johnson for the 1 1/16

Steve


 

[Ky-Flinter]

To my eye that comb profile looks like it may have been altered later in life.

Yes.  The auction write-up linked above mentions the nose of the stock's comb was lowered "slightly" during it's period of use.  IMHO, I think it was lowered more that "slightly".  I agree with Steve.

What immediately says “early American longrifle” when you see it?

The patchbox has been mentioned and I agree.  To me the box has a lot of the features of it's predecessor, the sliding wood patchbox lid, with it's narrow base, nearly parallel sides, domed shape and it's blunt-nosed forward end.  In the very slight flair at the base of the side rails I see the beginning of the evolution to the later and more tri-angular pathboxes.

What says “Lancaster”?

To me it's that classic triangular shaped butt stock.  Extend the straight line of the lower edge of the stock toward the lock and extend the straight line of the comb toward the lock and the lines intersect at the center of the lock.  (Well, they would have if someone hadn't rasped off the comb on this rifle.)

What says “Dickert”?

I know other old masters used them, but for me it's the back to back C-scrolls behind the cheek piece.  Dickert's are just perfect.

Ron

[Jim Kibler]

One good starting point exercise might be to talk about what features distinguish these longrifles from European counterparts of the same period.  Any takers?

[Eric Kettenburg]

Not all early (pre-War) work is a club.  Just keep that in mind - it took me a while to come to grips with that.

John Schneider 1776 being a case in point.

[rich pierce]

Not all early (pre-War) work is a club.  Just keep that in mind - it took me a while to come to grips with that.

John Schneider 1776 being a case in point.

Eric, that one could be great to discuss. Do you have pictures?

[Eric Kettenburg]

I did but I can no longer find them.  I had old hard-copy color photos at 8X10 and some large b/w from George, some that weren't in the book.  I don't know where they are but I don't remember loaning them to anyone and I simply can't find them here.  It's a very slender, skinny piece with a barrel that is just under an inch at the breech, but there is some decent meat through the cheek.  The singular time that I was able to get a good look at it, I was quite impressed with its creativity and it has all the hallmarks of genuine age and use.  It's quite a fantastic rifle that is generally overlooked in any discussion of 'wartime' rifles.

Also (and this may stir up some controversy) pretty much everyone who can trace their lineage back to a Schneider/Snyder surname claims descendance, but unfortunately Schneider/Snyder was an unbelievably common surname in SEPA and "John" sure doesn't help.  I have yet to see *documentable* information as to specifically who or where he was.  Not saying it's not out there, but I haven't seen it.  *Period* documentation, not 'Ancestry' documentation or oral familial history.

[JTR]

We don't have any early Dickert's in the Library here to compare, but we do have a nice 1790/1800ish Dickert to use as a later rifle to compare to this early one.
This gun has had some restoration, but all the important parts are generally original; The barrel was stretched, the lock reconverted to flint, etc. But overall, it's what most Dickerts looked like 20 or 30 years after the early one was made. One major exception would be the outstanding cheek side carving on this rifle.

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=22664.0

[sbowman]

 

 modern reproduction of Schneider rifle. descendant measured, photographed, original and other than barrel and lock got it pretty close.
 I can post more pictures if anyone wants to discuss this rifle.

 Steve

[Jim Kibler]

How about Kindig #18 for a slender wrist.

[Bryan Enoch]

Hello Rich,

I usually am here to read and learn but I saw your post before anyone responded with answers except for the request that somebody needs to start.  Ha.

I’m a real novice but for decades my first love of flintlock longrifles was this early Lancaster rifle.

To me, the triangle straight top and bottom of the but has a Lancaster style, and angles all scream Lancaster to me.

The wider, flatter butt shape and cap scream early vs more later skinnier and curved like the same Lancaster showed 20-30 years later.

The domed matchbox looks like Dickert or Isaac Haines.  But it’s more primitive style with basic, simple, more primitive engraving again spell “Early” to me. 

The trigger looks like the early German Jagers types and the lock looks to have more early German style to my eyes and the lock just looks earlier by larger, longer, and less refined style.

The barrel sizes of earlier guns are often larger across the flats at rear and muzzle than later guns at least from what I have noted.

Again, I’m just a novice compared to so many artisans here but I’ve looked at many “early Lancaster” style guns and these stand out to me.

Oh, the C scrolls seem to more closely resemble the Lancaster styles to me.


Great topic. 

Thanks
Bryan